Re: [boost] hash table library proposal (was Extensions in Boost.Compatibility)

From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-14 08:39:13

On Friday 13 December 2002 14:50, Beman Dawes wrote:
> Yes, but I think we should try to stick closely to the LWG proposal. In
> fact, it might be an advantage for standardization to have an exact
> implementation. (It might be worth asking Matt Austern how he proposes to
> change the interface to deal with the issues still on the table.)
>
> Something completely different might be OK, too, but it doesn't serve
> anyone's interest to do something "almost standard". That was the point of
> the question.

I agree totally. So the optimal solution would be to start from Matt's work. 
Another plan would be to start from Jeremy Maitin-Shepard's implementation 
and to try to converge to Matt's proposal !